White House States They’re Not Looking For Regime Change In Syria

(The Hill) The White House said Tuesday that President Obama is not seeking “regime change” in Syria from any military strikes launched in response to President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

“The options we are considering are not about regime change,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “That is not what we are contemplating here.”

The White House spokesman said that the administration was instead simply weighing a reaction to the violation of “an international standard” barring the use of chemical weapons.

“It is not our policy to respond to this transgression with regime change,” he said.

So, what’s the point? As CNN notes, over 100,000 have been killed during the civil war (which includes lots of Islamists from a range of countries), so, does 1,300 killed in a chemical attack outweigh 100000 killed in conventional attacks? Either way you’re dead. But, one apparently crossed an arbitrary red line

Carney said Tuesday that Syria’s use of chemical weapons did pose an actual threat to the U.S.

“I believe that absolutely allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to or threat to the United States’ national security,” Carney said.

He forgot to tell us exactly what that threat is. I’d like to hear what it is, and not just from the White House, but from others who have been pushing for action, such as John McCain. Because I don’t see it. Perhaps someone has a guess?

(The Hill) Airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force,” former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) told The Hill.

The outspoken anti-war activist said any such action would plunge the United States into another war in the Middle East and embolden Islamist militants fighting Bashar Assad’s regime.

“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ – that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”